Reform Examples - EPA's 2002 New Source Review Improvements

June 2002

Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs):

Using a PAL type permit, a computer chip manufacturing facility used
pollution prevention techniques to lower its smog forming volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions by 70% from 190 tons/year to 56 tons/year, while
at the same time increasing production significantly. The PAL permit provided
flexibility to allow quick and timely process and equipment changes that
enabled the facility to significantly reduce VOC emissions without triggering
costly and time-intensive permitting actions. New generations of computer
chips are introduced every 12 to 24 months, and this company typically
needed to make 150 to 200 equipment and operational changes per year.
In the absence of the PAL type permit, the company would need to examine
each change individually to determine whether it triggered NSR.

Clean Unit Test:

A company that manufactures chemical and specialty products for home
care, personal care, home storage and insect control operates a plant
in an ozone non-attainment area. All of the plant's aerosol product-filling
and packaging operations underwent non-attainment NSR in the early to
mid-1990s. The NSR permitting process required the installation of very
stringent emission controls. Under the current NSR program, many routine
projects designed to maintain or improve operating efficiencies, improve
safety, and reduce operating costs at this facility could trigger NSR,
even though very stringent controls are in place, emissions would remain
well within permit limits, and the offsets previously secured were based
on maximum permitted capacity. In many cases, projects designed to improve
operating efficiency would also result in decreased line scrap and waste
generation, providing a pollution prevention benefit.

Calculation of Emissions:

A refinery wanted to install a heat exchanger that would recover waste
heat from one of its gasoline-producing units. As a result other heaters
and boilers would need to be used less, reducing energy usage and emissions.
However, because of how NSR currently measures future emissions (i.e.,
assumes future operation is at full capacity, although present operation
is not) the project showed a "potential" emissions increase
that could trigger NSR. The facility determined that NSR would make the
project uneconomical, and it would not go forward.

Pollution Control Project:

A facility that is equipped with boilers that currently burn fuel oil
wanted to change its boilers so they could burn natural gas, which would
reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX. It may also result in a fuel cost savings.
Although emissions of SO2 and NOX would decrease significantly, the facility
projected emissions of VOCs and CO to increase slightly. These increases
could trigger NSR, and the facility is likely to conclude that the project
is no longer viable and continue to burn oil. This change would no longer
be subject to NSR because the exclusion for pollution prevention and control
projects includes fuel switching.

Routine Maintenance, Repair and Replacement:

For example, a manufacturer operates a process that includes a drying
system. It determined that the energy efficiency of the system could be
improved if the existing drier nozzles were replaced with Teflon-coated
nozzles. Because it could not readily determine whether installation of
the new nozzles would be considered routine maintenance, repair or replacement,
the company decided not to proceed with the project. NSR excludes repairs
and maintenance activities that are "routine," but a complex
analysis must currently be used to determine what repairs meet that standard.
This has deterred companies from conducting needed repairs, often times
resulting in unnecessary emissions of pollution. The proposed changes
would provide more certainty for activities that qualify for the routine
maintenance, repair and replacement exclusion.